"the CEO of the Corporate Republic. He's created the first but surely not the last truly Unaccountable Corporation, a vast entity that is, in fact, above the law and more powerful than the government which enables it."
Oh please, we have the LEAST to fear from Microsoft of all corporations in the "Corporate Republic". Oh no our software won't be Free! Millions will starve! No way, Microsoft is FAR from the first. The ones we have to fear are the ones that bury toxic materials and cover it up (*cough* Erin Brokovich *cough*), destroy the environment, fund wars, sell weapons, imprison people, control the food supply, etc.
The issue with Microsoft is a fairly obscure ideological issue. The Corporate Republic has been around far longer than Microsoft, and has much much scarier players.
Well, it's about time Netscape got with it and jumped on the dot com bandwagon. The whole "media hub" thing is a really cool new idea...I mean nobody'sdoingthat.
I hope the slashdot article was tongue-in-cheek, because this is EXACTLY WHAT WE NEED.
"The potential impact here is scary."
Yeah, it's scary that we might be getting what we were asking for the whole time!
"And how far will those changes penetrate throughout the industry?"
Hopefully far and wide.
"This can't be good for the consumer."
But paying $17 dollars for a CD for one good song IS? I thought the whole point was to avoid the artificial scarcity and inefficiency of material distribution.
"'We want to continue to work with leaders in the music industry, like EMI, to not only provide for the protection of their digital content, but also to enable record companies and artists to get paid for burning.' Yikes!"
Not "Yikes!", "YAY!". I don't get you people. First we complained that the music industry didn't "get it", and that CDs are exorbitantly inexpensive and of much less value than digital copies. But now that somebody actually "gets it" and wants to SELL you legitimate digital copies so you don't have to illegally copy them (say, from a "friend" in.cx), Oh No, That's Awful!
How many of you were crowing that you trade MP3s because CDs are outrageously expensive, or some other similar moral rationalization? Well HERE is your solution. You can't now cry and say "oh, wait a minute...no no, I really DID want free copyright-infringed music...this isn't fair!". If you respect the GPL, you have to respect the copyrights of artists (just another form of "author"). Now, whether the music industry will really allow a fair amount of profits to filter back to artists anyway is still an issue, and some may still find a moral haven for trading MP3s. How can the same people that tout micro-payments and street performer's protocol, complain when a mechanism allowing people to compensate artists is being created?
Or have I been trolled?
Re:loose is not lose!
on
Just For Fun
·
· Score: 1
"When did people not realize that nerds made the money and got all the chicks?"
Um, lessee, perhaps before this "internet" thing hit and everybody jumped on AOL to swap MP3s? How many of us would have gotten picked on and/or beaten up for wearing the ThinkGeek "geek." shirt to school? Now I wear it and people are like "cool man". So yes you bastard, you must not be old enough >:|
"BSD OSes/licences and others allow *FOR* the protection of IP."
Weeeellll....
It allows for the protection of IP *as long as you agree to allow anybody else to use that IP*. If you are an "original author" that wants to change a license on a large code base, just *try* contacting every single person who touched the source, let alone discover *who* actually contributed *what*. In reality the sheer difficulty of isolating the IP of every single contributor makes the only option to be that people working on an OS project agree ahead of time that any IP they contribute may be licensed differently in the future without notification. In most cases this is true.
Amen. Paul got screwed, and I think it's actually pretty brave of him to come back to the screen after this long. He was recently on Conan O'Brian's show, and he was really a riot. To bad his career was ruined for so long.
If you haven't read the Unabomer Manifesto, you are coincidentally making some of his same points. In short, "modern technological society" allows us to more or less trivially obtain everything we *need* ("What could you want outside of food, shelter, clothing and your health?"). Once we have all the necessities, what else do we do with our lives? Well, we pursue surrogate activities, our careers. We invent and sell stuff. A lot of this stuff is unnecessary and useless crap (didn't Marx predict that most capitalisms would devolve into a vicious cycle of selling lots and lost of crap?).
The vast majority of people (myself included) buy into this rat race. The others are labeled fruits and commies and when they try to opt out.
"If you wanna stop all that, make us all equal. Nothing good, new, or exciting will happen ever again because there is no way to increase my position in life. I am working my butt off while the jack ass next to me is sitting on his butt reading, if that happens I won't work anymore."
Yeah, that's just ca-razzzzy! I mean, I write software for money. I can't imagine anybody writing software for the heck of it, without getting paid, and distributing to others to freely share. I mean, that's INSANE man.
"Engineers have to get paid for their work of recording the music, and advertising and promotion is very expensive, too."
And how was this different, say, 10, 20, 30 years ago? Cry me a river. I'm sure when cars came around, buggy manufacturers were all saying "Hey, that's not fair...we have *real* expenses, engineers have to get paid! buggy parts aren't cheap you know! we'll have to cut into our marketing budget!".
This looks like normal market forces, and will happen any time a new better technology obsoletes an old one.
Re:Gods you fiends! Here's your changelog...
on
XFree 4.1.0 Out
·
· Score: 2
Just curious...where did you grab this from?
Re:Functional != unprotected
on
Duct Tape
·
· Score: 2
"Any speech can be functional."
You know, you can study your physics book all you want, but no matter how hard you try, a breeder reactor will not assemble itself in front of you. You need to obtain actual, and very very rare (and immediately physically dangerous) materials.
Software is a peculiar sort of speech in that it can also be considered a "device" (I don't know who started that terminology). But a physics books (speech) and breeder reactor (device) do *NOT* overlap like software does (I think this is the point the poster was trying to get accross when he described a non-empty set containing DeCSS, but NOT a physics book).
"Redistribution and use in source and binary forms are permitted provided that this notice is preserved and due credit is given to the original author and the contributors."
In the "new" (or "clarified" whatever) license, the phrase "Yes, that means you need permission from the authors..." was tacked on. I don't see that as a clarification at all. Neither providing notice and giving due credit, imply that you have to actually get explicit consent from the authors. It's not a clarification, it's some extra limitations added on for the heck of it. Of course I don't know the whole history, etc., and am just deducing this from the visual diff of the two licenses, but still it seems rather specious.
#1) http://www.cnn.com/2001/US/05/03/us.human/
And go find whatever other links you want. There are several reasons why we were kicked off, including our position on land mines and AIDS drugs.
#2) Lessee...um, Mayan, Incan, most any indigenous American civilization (oh no, the Aztecs sacrificed people, cringe, cringe), Chinese, most indigineous civilizations accross the globe, um, Persia, some of the European civilizations like the Celts. India did have a pretty amazing civilization, but you're right, the caste system was a shame, so that probably bars it. Each had their share of bad points, but it's not as if modern countries don't also.
#3) Oops sorry, I guess all my arguments are invalid because I didn't use the jargon you wanted me too. How about: "I'm not convinced that what allows the most accumulation of wealth is necessarily equal to what's best".
"So in some ways, I agree that "corporate power" or as I would say, "the free market" must be checked."
Due to economies of scale businesses in free markets inevitably migrate towards monopolies and exploitation of the consumer. There was a quote to the fact by one of the founding fathers, that I haven't been able to dig up again, but whatever. Free markets aren't "gratis" and can't be simply left alone to work their magic like some libertarians would have you believe.
"Therefore, we must regulate the market as best as we can to limit the failings of human perception."
And I would hope that would include limiting the power of any given corporation over media outlets, and over government itself. Things become a lot more messy in this wonderful free market, when entities in the market itself have power over political policy and the very channels through which we poor feeble-minded humans perceive them. The free market breaks down in this case because consumers *can't* make informed decisions. We can't choose the best sandwich - they're all crap with a different marketing spin. Taken to the extreme, you tack on a housing complex to Walmart, and Walmart becomes its own country with its own command economy, etc.
"Ah, but Katz is a hypocrit because as it turns out people don't HAVE to work for corporations in a free market. They can work for whomever they choose."
That might be true in theory but not so much in practice. In reality it is *very* hard not to somehow support the organizations I've talked about in one manner or another. Sure you can try to find a job somewhere totally unrelated. But who grew the grain that is in your sandwich bread?
Who provides the fuel for vehicle you drive to work? Who generates the very electricity that goes into your house? It is not practical to say you can avoid somehow impplicitly supporting these organizations. You can't opt out in this society (or at least it is very very difficult, and when you do you are labeled a fruity communist hippie). I try my best, but everyone is a hyprocrite in some manner or other. I suppose to prove I *really* wasn't a hypocrite I'd have to move to some remote jungle in Asia...but even *there* globalization is encroaching.
"However, we must avoid cramping down too much otherwise the market will no longer be free, and we'll be subject to one person or groups perception."
However, as you (hopefully) agree, to keep the market free, we must regulate so that the very same doesn't happen from within the market - corporations conglomerating and enforcing their agendas on other entities in the market.
"Hmmm, sort of like the media empires we've had since there was a media."
Yup, the network channels were originally radio.
"Strange, what empire is/. a part of that I missed? Is/. deciding everything for me?"
No it's not. Thankfully the net provides at least a temporary refuge for independent media and journalism. But even as we speak the number of independent sites on the net are dropping like flies, taken over by outgrowths of the major TV, and newspaper media networks (can we say AOL/TimeWarner?).
"Strange, would you rather have chemicals from a small company? What does the size of the company have to do with it?"
Most definately. Size is a pretty good indication of power. I'd presume a smaller company would be less likely to manipulate public policy, cover up any potential misdeeds, gouge consumers, etc.
"Hmm, as opposed to farmers making decisions for us? What is the difference?"
Same as above. If MegaCo. puts GMO XYZ in a food product I may never know, or if I do I can't do much about it. Mr. Farmer running a family farm is 1) more environmentally sound 2) has much smaller distribution channel, and area of impact 3) can be held accountable much more easily.
"but do they really control whether millions of people live or die or does the market?"
And here it is all tied up in patent law, etc., which big corporations have weedled and badgered the government into allowing all sorts of ridiculous things. In my opinion "promote the progress of science and useful arts" does not extend to allowing millions to die of AIDs for instance, simply because you do not want to allow another company in some foreign country on the other side of the world to reproduce your magical patented chemical with their own labor.
"If you ditched patent rights on genetic research, how many pharamcutical companies will do it? Guess. How about zero."
Patents have a place of course, but in current practice patent law has been manipulated to inordinately favor the holder at the expense of society. Patent scope and duration needs to be tied to the rate of development of the industry it is in, and the significance to society, instead of being blindly handed out like party favors.
"This sounds like classic accademic, liberal banter lacking in any viable alternative or suggestion and unleashed from the ivory tower of contempt known as the University."
Strange, we've already agreed on a lot. I can't be blind to the overreaching effects of big corporations (or big *anything*) on government, and media. If you really believe that we need regulation to safeguard the free market, I would say that we are currently being way too lax in enforcing those regulations. In my opinion the first big step would be to get as much corporate influence out of politics in general...then I think the other problems will probably resolve themselves without any drastic measures. We need to get the free market off steroids and accountable to the people again.
So then, you're defining performance as human rights? That is somewhat ironic seeing as we just got kicked off the UN human rights commission and we're fuming like a petulant little boy. We too have a bit of dirty history that we don't talk much about in the history books.
Those who win the wars write history and define the rules of the game for others. We won, so the rules are capitalistic rules...which of course are making it very difficult for non-capitalist countries to compete in the global economy (whether or not they violate human rights). Capitalism may be the "best system yet" simply because we've economically outcompeted everything else. I'm not convinced that what makes the most wealth is necessarily equal to what's best. There have been plenty of damn fine civilizations in history based on systems other than capitalism and democracy.
Um, so. Didn't your mother tell you that too much of *anything* is a bad thing? VA Linux is hardly even a blip on the radar or corporate significance. What matters are the giant media conglomerations that decide what information is the most marketable. What matters are giant biotechnology, chemical, agribusiness corporations whose every move shows up in the food we eat, and the environment around us. What matters is giant pharmaceutical companies who hold patents on the genomes of entire ethnicities, and can control whether millions of people live or die each day. Perhaps you are comfortable living in a world where everything you see, eat, touch, and think is colored or even dictated by a handful of extremely powerful faceless corporations, but I'm not. Corporate power (like any other power) needs to be in check. Just because you can cite "good" examples of corporations doesn't mitigate this fact, and just because it turns out people have to *work* for corporations to put bread on their table doesn't make them hypocrites.
Or how about a geeky analogy: Microsoft claims that Linux isn't ready for the desktop, it doesn't have the applications or compatibility with Microsoft formats, and Slashdotters complain that that is because Microsoft has a monopoly and network effect which it can use to put the burden of compatibility on the underdog. What if Linux came out before Windows? We might all be saying "Microsoft isn't ready for the desktop".
"Third World nations that have adopted Communism grossly underperform those that are capitalist"
People who don't play by the rules of the game that those in control of the game have invented don't do as well. What is your definition of "underperform"? If USSR won the cold war, we might just be saying that "capitalist economies grossly underperform those that are communist".
"is inevitably the path that every society will eventually take."
That galls me. Why are you so sure of this? Just because the west has gone down this road means that this is the direction all civilization must inevitably take? What hubris. Is this the inevitable path that farmers in South America or India, and fisherman in Southeast Asia need to take? I don't get it. Through amazing and complex coincidences and circumstances we have come to where we are...I don't see how this is necessarily the One True Way. What short collective memories we have.
It's all fair use anyway. It's not like Slashdot is in the "processed-canned-meat" industry and is trying to "fool" consumers. "Duh, hey Slashdot makes SPAM, I didn't know that"
AFAIK trademarks really only apply within a given industry. E.g., if Ford wanted to name a car Spam, that would probably be legal. In any case, Slashdot can always just show the cubical slab of Spam, as opposed to the packaging.
Slashdot Mirror
Of course it's not radical. I believe that was sarcasm...or at least tongue-in-cheek.
"the CEO of the Corporate Republic. He's created the first but surely not the last truly Unaccountable Corporation, a vast entity that is, in fact, above the law and more powerful than the government which enables it."
Oh please, we have the LEAST to fear from Microsoft of all corporations in the "Corporate Republic". Oh no our software won't be Free! Millions will starve! No way, Microsoft is FAR from the first. The ones we have to fear are the ones that bury toxic materials and cover it up (*cough* Erin Brokovich *cough*), destroy the environment, fund wars, sell weapons, imprison people, control the food supply, etc.
The issue with Microsoft is a fairly obscure ideological issue. The Corporate Republic has been around far longer than Microsoft, and has much much scarier players.
Well, it's about time Netscape got with it and jumped on the dot com bandwagon. The whole "media hub" thing is a really cool new idea...I mean nobody's doing that.
I hope the slashdot article was tongue-in-cheek, because this is EXACTLY WHAT WE NEED.
.cx), Oh No, That's Awful!
"The potential impact here is scary."
Yeah, it's scary that we might be getting what we were asking for the whole time!
"And how far will those changes penetrate throughout the industry?"
Hopefully far and wide.
"This can't be good for the consumer."
But paying $17 dollars for a CD for one good song IS? I thought the whole point was to avoid the artificial scarcity and inefficiency of material distribution.
"'We want to continue to work with leaders in the music industry, like EMI, to not only provide for the protection of their digital content, but also to enable record companies and artists to get paid for burning.' Yikes!"
Not "Yikes!", "YAY!". I don't get you people. First we complained that the music industry didn't "get it", and that CDs are exorbitantly inexpensive and of much less value than digital copies. But now that somebody actually "gets it" and wants to SELL you legitimate digital copies so you don't have to illegally copy them (say, from a "friend" in
How many of you were crowing that you trade MP3s because CDs are outrageously expensive, or some other similar moral rationalization? Well HERE is your solution. You can't now cry and say "oh, wait a minute...no no, I really DID want free copyright-infringed music...this isn't fair!". If you respect the GPL, you have to respect the copyrights of artists (just another form of "author"). Now, whether the music industry will really allow a fair amount of profits to filter back to artists anyway is still an issue, and some may still find a moral haven for trading MP3s. How can the same people that tout micro-payments and street performer's protocol, complain when a mechanism allowing people to compensate artists is being created?
Or have I been trolled?
Oh shut up you looser!
"When did people not realize that nerds made the money and got all the chicks?"
Um, lessee, perhaps before this "internet" thing hit and everybody jumped on AOL to swap MP3s? How many of us would have gotten picked on and/or beaten up for wearing the ThinkGeek "geek." shirt to school? Now I wear it and people are like "cool man". So yes you bastard, you must not be old enough >:|
"BSD OSes/licences and others allow *FOR* the protection of IP."
Weeeellll....
It allows for the protection of IP *as long as you agree to allow anybody else to use that IP*. If you are an "original author" that wants to change a license on a large code base, just *try* contacting every single person who touched the source, let alone discover *who* actually contributed *what*. In reality the sheer difficulty of isolating the IP of every single contributor makes the only option to be that people working on an OS project agree ahead of time that any IP they contribute may be licensed differently in the future without notification. In most cases this is true.
Amen. Paul got screwed, and I think it's actually pretty brave of him to come back to the screen after this long. He was recently on Conan O'Brian's show, and he was really a riot. To bad his career was ruined for so long.
If you haven't read the Unabomer Manifesto, you are coincidentally making some of his same points. In short, "modern technological society" allows us to more or less trivially obtain everything we *need* ("What could you want outside of food, shelter, clothing and your health?"). Once we have all the necessities, what else do we do with our lives? Well, we pursue surrogate activities, our careers. We invent and sell stuff. A lot of this stuff is unnecessary and useless crap (didn't Marx predict that most capitalisms would devolve into a vicious cycle of selling lots and lost of crap?).
The vast majority of people (myself included) buy into this rat race. The others are labeled fruits and commies and when they try to opt out.
"If you wanna stop all that, make us all equal. Nothing good, new, or exciting will happen ever again because there is no way to increase my position in life. I am working my butt off while the jack ass next to me is sitting on his butt reading, if that happens I won't work anymore."
Yeah, that's just ca-razzzzy! I mean, I write software for money. I can't imagine anybody writing software for the heck of it, without getting paid, and distributing to others to freely share. I mean, that's INSANE man.
"Engineers have to get paid for their work of recording the music, and advertising and promotion is very expensive, too."
And how was this different, say, 10, 20, 30 years ago? Cry me a river. I'm sure when cars came around, buggy manufacturers were all saying "Hey, that's not fair...we have *real* expenses, engineers have to get paid! buggy parts aren't cheap you know! we'll have to cut into our marketing budget!".
This looks like normal market forces, and will happen any time a new better technology obsoletes an old one.
Just curious...where did you grab this from?
"Any speech can be functional."
You know, you can study your physics book all you want, but no matter how hard you try, a breeder reactor will not assemble itself in front of you. You need to obtain actual, and very very rare (and immediately physically dangerous) materials.
Software is a peculiar sort of speech in that it can also be considered a "device" (I don't know who started that terminology). But a physics books (speech) and breeder reactor (device) do *NOT* overlap like software does (I think this is the point the poster was trying to get accross when he described a non-empty set containing DeCSS, but NOT a physics book).
"I might buy $1000 worth myself if they did this, just for the hell of it. Would you?"
Well, if was apparently like all the other geeks around here and crapped bricks of $100 bills sure.
"Redistribution and use in source and binary forms are permitted provided that this notice is preserved and due credit is given to the original author and the contributors."
In the "new" (or "clarified" whatever) license, the phrase "Yes, that means you need permission from the authors..." was tacked on. I don't see that as a clarification at all. Neither providing notice and giving due credit, imply that you have to actually get explicit consent from the authors. It's not a clarification, it's some extra limitations added on for the heck of it. Of course I don't know the whole history, etc., and am just deducing this from the visual diff of the two licenses, but still it seems rather specious.
d00d don't you know it's channel.* now...duh
My, aren't we a bit techy?
#1) http://www.cnn.com/2001/US/05/03/us.human/
And go find whatever other links you want. There are several reasons why we were kicked off, including our position on land mines and AIDS drugs.
#2) Lessee...um, Mayan, Incan, most any indigenous American civilization (oh no, the Aztecs sacrificed people, cringe, cringe), Chinese, most indigineous civilizations accross the globe, um, Persia, some of the European civilizations like the Celts. India did have a pretty amazing civilization, but you're right, the caste system was a shame, so that probably bars it. Each had their share of bad points, but it's not as if modern countries don't also.
#3) Oops sorry, I guess all my arguments are invalid because I didn't use the jargon you wanted me too. How about: "I'm not convinced that what allows the most accumulation of wealth is necessarily equal to what's best".
"So in some ways, I agree that "corporate power" or as I would say, "the free market" must be checked."
/. a part of that I missed? Is /. deciding everything for me?"
Due to economies of scale businesses in free markets inevitably migrate towards monopolies and exploitation of the consumer. There was a quote to the fact by one of the founding fathers, that I haven't been able to dig up again, but whatever. Free markets aren't "gratis" and can't be simply left alone to work their magic like some libertarians would have you believe.
"Therefore, we must regulate the market as best as we can to limit the failings of human perception."
And I would hope that would include limiting the power of any given corporation over media outlets, and over government itself. Things become a lot more messy in this wonderful free market, when entities in the market itself have power over political policy and the very channels through which we poor feeble-minded humans perceive them. The free market breaks down in this case because consumers *can't* make informed decisions. We can't choose the best sandwich - they're all crap with a different marketing spin. Taken to the extreme, you tack on a housing complex to Walmart, and Walmart becomes its own country with its own command economy, etc.
"Ah, but Katz is a hypocrit because as it turns out people don't HAVE to work for corporations in a free market. They can work for whomever they choose."
That might be true in theory but not so much in practice. In reality it is *very* hard not to somehow support the organizations I've talked about in one manner or another. Sure you can try to find a job somewhere totally unrelated. But who grew the grain that is in your sandwich bread?
Who provides the fuel for vehicle you drive to work? Who generates the very electricity that goes into your house? It is not practical to say you can avoid somehow impplicitly supporting these organizations. You can't opt out in this society (or at least it is very very difficult, and when you do you are labeled a fruity communist hippie). I try my best, but everyone is a hyprocrite in some manner or other. I suppose to prove I *really* wasn't a hypocrite I'd have to move to some remote jungle in Asia...but even *there* globalization is encroaching.
"However, we must avoid cramping down too much otherwise the market will no longer be free, and we'll be subject to one person or groups perception."
However, as you (hopefully) agree, to keep the market free, we must regulate so that the very same doesn't happen from within the market - corporations conglomerating and enforcing their agendas on other entities in the market.
"Hmmm, sort of like the media empires we've had since there was a media."
Yup, the network channels were originally radio.
"Strange, what empire is
No it's not. Thankfully the net provides at least a temporary refuge for independent media and journalism. But even as we speak the number of independent sites on the net are dropping like flies, taken over by outgrowths of the major TV, and newspaper media networks (can we say AOL/TimeWarner?).
"Strange, would you rather have chemicals from a small company? What does the size of the company have to do with it?"
Most definately. Size is a pretty good indication of power. I'd presume a smaller company would be less likely to manipulate public policy, cover up any potential misdeeds, gouge consumers, etc.
"Hmm, as opposed to farmers making decisions for us? What is the difference?"
Same as above. If MegaCo. puts GMO XYZ in a food product I may never know, or if I do I can't do much about it. Mr. Farmer running a family farm is 1) more environmentally sound 2) has much smaller distribution channel, and area of impact 3) can be held accountable much more easily.
"but do they really control whether millions of people live or die or does the market?"
And here it is all tied up in patent law, etc., which big corporations have weedled and badgered the government into allowing all sorts of ridiculous things. In my opinion "promote the progress of science and useful arts" does not extend to allowing millions to die of AIDs for instance, simply because you do not want to allow another company in some foreign country on the other side of the world to reproduce your magical patented chemical with their own labor.
"If you ditched patent rights on genetic research, how many pharamcutical companies will do it? Guess. How about zero."
Patents have a place of course, but in current practice patent law has been manipulated to inordinately favor the holder at the expense of society. Patent scope and duration needs to be tied to the rate of development of the industry it is in, and the significance to society, instead of being blindly handed out like party favors.
"This sounds like classic accademic, liberal banter lacking in any viable alternative or suggestion and unleashed from the ivory tower of contempt known as the University."
Strange, we've already agreed on a lot. I can't be blind to the overreaching effects of big corporations (or big *anything*) on government, and media. If you really believe that we need regulation to safeguard the free market, I would say that we are currently being way too lax in enforcing those regulations. In my opinion the first big step would be to get as much corporate influence out of politics in general...then I think the other problems will probably resolve themselves without any drastic measures. We need to get the free market off steroids and accountable to the people again.
So then, you're defining performance as human rights? That is somewhat ironic seeing as we just got kicked off the UN human rights commission and we're fuming like a petulant little boy. We too have a bit of dirty history that we don't talk much about in the history books.
Those who win the wars write history and define the rules of the game for others. We won, so the rules are capitalistic rules...which of course are making it very difficult for non-capitalist countries to compete in the global economy (whether or not they violate human rights). Capitalism may be the "best system yet" simply because we've economically outcompeted everything else. I'm not convinced that what makes the most wealth is necessarily equal to what's best. There have been plenty of damn fine civilizations in history based on systems other than capitalism and democracy.
Um, so. Didn't your mother tell you that too much of *anything* is a bad thing? VA Linux is hardly even a blip on the radar or corporate significance. What matters are the giant media conglomerations that decide what information is the most marketable. What matters are giant biotechnology, chemical, agribusiness corporations whose every move shows up in the food we eat, and the environment around us. What matters is giant pharmaceutical companies who hold patents on the genomes of entire ethnicities, and can control whether millions of people live or die each day. Perhaps you are comfortable living in a world where everything you see, eat, touch, and think is colored or even dictated by a handful of extremely powerful faceless corporations, but I'm not. Corporate power (like any other power) needs to be in check. Just because you can cite "good" examples of corporations doesn't mitigate this fact, and just because it turns out people have to *work* for corporations to put bread on their table doesn't make them hypocrites.
Or how about a geeky analogy: Microsoft claims that Linux isn't ready for the desktop, it doesn't have the applications or compatibility with Microsoft formats, and Slashdotters complain that that is because Microsoft has a monopoly and network effect which it can use to put the burden of compatibility on the underdog. What if Linux came out before Windows? We might all be saying "Microsoft isn't ready for the desktop".
"Third World nations that have adopted Communism grossly underperform those that are capitalist"
People who don't play by the rules of the game that those in control of the game have invented don't do as well. What is your definition of "underperform"? If USSR won the cold war, we might just be saying that "capitalist economies grossly underperform those that are communist".
"is inevitably the path that every society will eventually take."
That galls me. Why are you so sure of this? Just because the west has gone down this road means that this is the direction all civilization must inevitably take? What hubris. Is this the inevitable path that farmers in South America or India, and fisherman in Southeast Asia need to take? I don't get it. Through amazing and complex coincidences and circumstances we have come to where we are...I don't see how this is necessarily the One True Way. What short collective memories we have.
Situationist
Adbusters
CorpWatch
AllYourBrand
etc.:
Independent Media Center
Metropolitic.net
You May Be An Anarchist And Not Even Know It (I too thought the "anarchy movement" was a load of crap from bored aggressive adolescents (they really spoil it for everybody don't they?) until reading this and realizing there really is a legitimate coherent philosophy behind it)
Mother Jones
In These Times
Poliglut
Protest.net (yes, sometimes there are actually legitimate reasons to protest)
PigDog journal
Unabomer Manifesto (he may have been labeled a wacko, but read it - he's not stupid and he does sorta have a point.)
It's all fair use anyway. It's not like Slashdot is in the "processed-canned-meat" industry and is trying to "fool" consumers. "Duh, hey Slashdot makes SPAM, I didn't know that"
AFAIK trademarks really only apply within a given industry. E.g., if Ford wanted to name a car Spam, that would probably be legal. In any case, Slashdot can always just show the cubical slab of Spam, as opposed to the packaging.